Tudor Queens of England by David Loades Page B

appears to demonstrate. Cook, a former Lord Mayor of London, seems to have had Lancastrian sympathies, although in what ways these had been manifested is not clear. He was accused of treason at the instance of Lord Rivers and imprisoned. While he was in prison his house was ransacked by servants of Rivers and various property was stolen, apparently for the benefi t of Lady Rivers. When he was brought to trial, Cook was acquitted, but found guilty of the lesser crime of misprision and fi ned £5,000. In response to his complaint, an independent commission was then appointed to assess the damage

T H E Q U E E N A S L O V E R
    51
    infl icted by Rivers and set it against his fi ne, but before this reported the Queen demanded the ancient (but largely forgotten) right of ‘Queen’s gold’ to the tune of another £600, which he was compelled to pay. Not surprisingly, Cook became an even more enthusiastic Lancastrian and petitioned the readeption parliament in 1470 for losses of £14,666. The source of this story is Robert Fabyan’s
    Chronicle , so it cannot be accepted entirely at face value. 12 However, Fabyan claims to have been Cook’s apprentice at the time and as told it is full of circumstantial detail. The villain was clearly Rivers, but neither Edward nor Elizabeth emerge with any credit. It may not be irrelevant that the rebels executed the Earl in 1469 but there is no trace of the ill feeling that might have been expected to result between London and the King. What is most signifi cant is that a story against the Queen’s family, although almost certainly distorted and exaggerated, should have been relayed and accepted in such an authoritative way. It is probably fair to conclude that, although the King took no steps to convert the Woodville family into an aristocratic affi nity, they nevertheless saw themselves in that light. There is some supporting evidence for that in the marriage agreements concluded on behalf of the Queen’s sisters, which show Rivers trading favours on terms of equality with the great houses into which the young ladies were marrying. They may not have been particularly powerful in fact, but their pretensions grated and they did not carry their good fortune graciously.
    When Edward was suddenly overwhelmed by rebellion in the summer of 1469, Elizabeth was safely ensconced in the Tower. The Earl of Warwick’s objective seems to have been to recover control over the King, as though he had been no more
    compos mentis than Henry VI, but all he managed to achieve was the resolution of his private vendetta against the Woodvilles and their allies. On 25
    July he had the better of a confused and sanguinary battle near Banbury, captured the King and executed (without any semblance of judicial process) the Earl of Devon, Earl Rivers, Sir John Woodville and Sir Thomas Herber
    t.13 W arwick’s more general political objectives are obscure. He endeavoured to call a parliament to York and may have been intending to depose Edward in favour of his brother the Duke of Clarence but he was not really in command of the situation and when Edward escaped from Middleham Castle in September, it seems that he decided to settle for a bargain. He had demonstrated that although he could obtain a temporary ascendancy, he could not obtain suffi cient support to remove Edward
    – least of all in favour of Clarence. Moreover he had no appealing agenda. There were grievances out there to be exploited but he made no attempt to do so. His aims, as one scholar has observed, remained entirely and obviously selfi sh. On the other hand his lawless behaviour had earned him no punishment, because the King was bent on reconciliation.
    52

T U D O R Q U E E N S O F E N G L A N D
    [Edward] ‘regarded nothing more than to win again the friendship of such noblemen as were now alienated from him, to confi rm the goodwill of them that were hovering and inconstant, and to reduce the mind of the multitude … unto their late obedience,